TV's past, future, as viewed via the Oscars

Updated 7:38 pm, Monday, February 25, 2013

On Sunday evening, as Twitter filled with Oscar mentions, it suddenly occurred to me I had no way to watch the Academy Awards.

Frustrated with the high cost and meager offerings of cable, I cut the cord about six months ago. I've since relied on Apple TV, selecting from shows on Netflix and Hulu Plus, while renting movies or buying the occasional series on iTunes.

But there are moments where I'm out of luck, when no “over the top” alternative is available, as during the World Series, the Super Bowl and once again on Sunday.

My various attempts to get around the problem that night mostly failed, but the experience highlighted a few lessons about television's past, present and — hopefully — future.

Business Channel

Pepsi CEO Says Millennials Want Jobs That Make a DifferenceFortuneTime

Why Marathons Are Attracting Fewer RunnersFortuneTime

Deloitte Is the Latest Company Hit With a Cyber AttackFortuneTime

Bank Of America Thinks These Stocks Look PromisingWochit

Companies Are Cashing In On Chat AppsWochit

Toys R Us Bankruptcy Bad News For Asset ManagersWochit

Walmart, Google Team Up for New Ordering SystemWochit

Bank Stocks Are On Fire And Traders Are Lining Up Bets For More To ComeWochit

Last Mile Health CEO: The Importance of Health Care for ChildrenFortuneTime

CDC Using Google and Social Media for Flu ForecastingBuzz60

The big one is this: TV companies are at a critical crossroads where they either can forsake the growing number of customers who prefer online delivery, or aim to win them for life by catering to their needs at this early stage of the television transformation.

The red carpet

The first thing I did was download ABC's “Official Oscars” app on my iPad, which initially impressed me immeasurably.

As I watched the red carpet presentation, I felt like I was witnessing the future of TV. The app allowed the viewer to “direct,” by choosing between live camera feeds of arrivals, interviews, fashion commentary and crowd views. I mostly watched Chris Connelly's obsequious interviews with arriving stars.

The app allowed me to customize my experience, to watch the particular part of the show that interested me and to ignore the rest. It's a model for how live broadcasts should go in the modern age, as the Internet blurs the line between viewer and participant.

The show

It's just a pity that ABC couldn't apply this model to the actual show. As host Seth MacFarlane kicked things off by giggling about actresses' breasts, it became clear that none of the real action was going to happen on the app, not even an audio feed.

To be fair, this was by design. ABC positioned the app as a “second screen” experience, allowing you to pivot your attention between it and the TV. It didn't want to cannibalize its own broadcast audience.

But here's my question: Why not? I was watching ads on the app too, and given the option, I would have paid some amount of money to view the actual show. Just as I would, if allowed, pay for access to HBO Go, the premium's channel's online site.

In both cases, however, I don't want to plunk down for an entire cable package every month just for the privilege.

Cutting the cord

Cable subscription numbers already have flattened, as millions of consumers have cut the cord in the last few years and millions of young households never signed up in the first place.

By now, it's an inevitability that the world will continue marching toward Internet-based TV. As with all forms of media, the model is simply too much better. Viewers want and deserve interactivity, choice and control.

Cable companies and broadcasters can suffer the same fate as those long-forgotten outfits that mistakenly thought they were in the train business instead of the transportation industry. Or they can realize they're in the media business — and run programming on any kind of pipe.